part_links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that datasheet-lens does not open these pages, that results are one line per site, and that finding a datasheet should feed into add_document. It stops short of stating failure modes (e.g. sites with no match) or latency/coverage caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is compact and the scope is front-loaded, but the telegraphic sentence fragments ('A datasheet that you find: add_document with its URL. Gives one line for each site.') make the flow choppy and the final line's meaning (one result row per site) slightly ambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description still covers the essential agent workflow: search links, don't fetch pages, pass along or ingest into add_document. Only minor gaps, such as what happens on partial/no results, remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema already advising 'best the concrete orderable one.' The description adds no MPN formatting or matching guidance beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search links') and resource (links for a part), then enumerates exactly which categories and sites are covered (datasheet/price/stock vs. CAD symbol/footprint/3D). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the distributor and CAD-project tools by scoping to external link lookup, though it never names a sibling like search_distributors directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: 'Use them when the store and the CAD project have no datasheet, and for the CAD files.' It also tells the agent what to do next — open a link with a web tool, hand links to the user, or call add_document with a found URL — which is unusually complete routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.